Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suneeta Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2777 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Suneeta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashikant Verma,Dhirendra Kumar Mishra,Monika Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 13.2.2020 passed by the Executive Engineer, Lucknow Division-II, Sharda Nahar, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner's representation for regularization has been rejected.
3. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7366 (SS) of 2011. The said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2011. The operative part of the order dated 12.10.2011 would read as under:-
"Keeping in view of the aforesaid fact, I hereby dispose of the writ petition finally with the direction to opposite party no. 2 to look into the matter and if the petitioner is working ,she will be paid at least minimum rate of wages as prescribed by the State Government on daily wage basis or on monthly basis.
Petitioner also seeks relaxation on the post of Sweeper under the relevant rules for which she is permitted to make a representation to the authority concerned, who will consider the same in accordance with law.?
4. After sometime, the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No.18421 (SS) of 2019 for the same relief. the said writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 5.7.2019. the operative part of the order dated 5.7.2019 would read as under:-
"Therefore, without entering into merit of the issue, the petitioner is permitted to prefer a fresh representation before opposite party no.4 taking all pleas and grounds, which are available to her enclosing therewith the copies of her earlier representations, relevant documents and copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Jagjit Singh (supra) within a period of fifteen days from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the opposite party no.4 shall consider and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law in the light of dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Jagjit Singh (supra), with expedition, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
Since learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of the petitioner may be regularized under the Regularization Rules, 2016, therefore, in her fresh representation, the petitioner shall make prayer for regularization also and opposite party no.4 shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as directed above.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.?
5. In pursuance to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 5.7.2019, the petitioner moved a representation dated 14.10.2019 before the concerned authority and vide impugned order dated 13.2.2020, the said representation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was never kept in the department either part-time, on contractual basis or as daily wager and no document in respect of her engagement was available in the department.
6. The petitioner had neither worked as daily wager nor part-time and no payment was ever made to her as there was no document to support that payment was being made to her at any point of time. It has been further said that for regularization of the services of a daily wager, contractual labour etc., under the U.P. Regularization of Persons Working on daily wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group ?C? and Group ?D? Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 certain conditions are provided, but the petitioner was never worked in the department nor she does fulfill those conditions and, therefore, there was no question of regularizing her services.
7. This is the third petition filed by the petitioner seeking same relief for her regularization. This Court vide order dated 13.4.2023 directed Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions whether the petitioner is still working in any capacity i.e. part-time, full time or daily wager etc.
8. In pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel has received written instructions dated 17.4.2023, in which it has been specifically said that the petitioner was never kept in the department ans she never worked in any capacity and even at present she is not working. It is further said that no post of Sweeper was sanctioned in the Lucknow Division-II, Sharda Nahar, Lucknow.
9. In view of the aforesaid instructions and the fact that this is a disputed question of fact where the petitioner claims to have been working since 1990 though it has been specifically denied in the written instructions, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
10. In view thereof, the writ petition being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioner is so advised, she may avail any other legal remedy as may be available to her in an appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Rao/-
